Talk:Lake Vyrnwy

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lakes

	Lakes portal Lake Vyrnwy is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map

Nice article, nice pictures. A map would be good - at least of Wales showing the location, and possibly also a larger one showing the contours of the lake. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The co-ordinates on the page were miles away from the correct ones - have corrected matters. Visitor centre is at 52.7611 -3.458759. (WycheGnome 26 November 2014).

Intro

I have slightly changed the opening paragraph. The original read that the reserve is "protected" by the RSPB and Severn Trent Water. I have changed it to "jointly managed", as I think it is more accurate. 88.111.113.60 (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that it states the purpose of building the dam as supplying water to Liverpool and Merseyside. As far as I am aware Merseyside (as an official metropolitan borough) only came into existence in 1974 long after the construction of the dam. The resulting link to the Merseyside page could cause confusion. Does anyone object to me removing Merseyside from the intro. 88.111.113.60 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what it means by merseyside is in terms of a 'rough' geographical region rather than a strict are defined by a borough. --Fuelboy (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I feel the resulting link to the merseyside page clouds the issue. If you click on the Mersesyside link it gives quite a strict definition of Merseyside. I think it would be clearer if it said something like "Liverpool and its environs". I realise it's not a major issue but we have to realise that wikipedia is global and as such should be completely understandable by everyone even if they have no prior knowledge of british geography. Kingbumpkin (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds good, or could one of us find a page that might describe the location better. i'll have a look.--Fuelboy (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Merseyside? --Fuelboy (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just edited it so that the reference to Merseyside remains but the link to the Merseyside page is removed. I think that's fair. Do you agree? Kingbumpkin (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the best idea currently available.--Fuelboy (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generator

It says this used to be the main source of power... I suppose nobody knows if there are figures for the dam's electrical output? Leushenko (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent statistics

The statistics given for surface area (4.53 km^2) and average depth (44 m) together give a volume of 4.53 km^2 * 0.044 km = 0.199 km^3, or 199 megalitres. This contradicts the stated volume of 59,666 megalitres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.5.25 (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are on to something, although your sums are wrong.

A cubic kilometer is one teralitre (1,000,000,000,000 litres). A cuboid with the specified area and depth has a volume of 199 gigalitres. This is more than three times the stated volume, but it is not as far out as you calculate. For the specified area and volume the average depth would be 13.1 metres (43 ft)

The original measurements from here are:

superficial area, 1,121 acres ; length, 4.75 miles; average width, 0.5 mile; maximum depth, 84ft.; capacity, 13,125 million gallons

This maximum depth of 84 feet (26 m) is consistent with the average depth calculated above.

I will remove the average depth value from the infobox and set the max-depth value from the above reference. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

How is Vyrnwy pronounced in English? VUR-noy? It previously said "[E]VURN-OI" but I think this was for the Welsh name Efyrnwy so I replaced it with IPA. Lfh (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nature Reserve query

Er, I can't see Lake Vyrnwy Nature Reserve on WP's List of national nature reserves in Wales. Is it maybe listed under another name? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feet or metres?

The article has recently been edited to flip the conversion of units, so that for example measurements in feet are derived from measurements in metres, not the other way around. The problem with this is that the cited sources mostly give the measurements in imperial units, e.g. [1]. Multiple conversions are likely to introduce errors, and we should relate the figures we give to the sources we cite. If desirable the {{convert}} template can be used to specify the order in which figures are given. I will revert most or all of these edits. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]